Najai Benchawan v Chong Qing (Origin) Steamboat (Pte) Ltd and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Vince Gui
• Judgment Date: 05 December 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 286
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 981 of 2018, District Court Assessment of Damages No. 542 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 21 November 2023,05 September 2023,13 July 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 286
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Palaniappan Sundararaj (K&L Gates Straits Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Daniel Loh Weijie and Fatia Annisa (BR Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Damages,Assessment,Loss of earning capacity,Scars disadvantage the claimant when seeking employment as performance artist,Personal injuries case,Pain, suffering and loss of amenity,Burn injuries
• Published date: 12 December 2023

Deputy Registrar Vince Gui: Introduction

Hotpot, also known as steamboat, is a culinary experience that is popular amongst Asian cuisines. There are many variations of hotpot, but they all revolve around the central premise of diners encircling a hot broth placed above a heated stove. Lauded for its variety and flexibility, diners can select which ingredients to cook at their leisure. Fresh ingredients infuse a symphony of flavours into a rich and simmering broth that promises to elevate the dining experience. Good condiments to pair provide the icing to the cake. But above all, the experience allows family and friends to bond over a communal dish which they can all partake in preparing.

The Plaintiff was evidently a fan of hotpot. A Thai national, she came to Singapore for work on or around 6 March 2015. In a short span of less than a month, she visited the 1st Defendant’s hotpot restaurant three times. The restaurant, located along Beach Road, was quite a distance from her workplace at Cuppage Plaza. Their hotpot must have been to her liking.

But on her third visit to the restaurant, her enjoyment was unexpectedly punctured by a horrific incident that would change the course of her life. She met her friend at the restaurant for supper after work. Just as she was about to finish her meal, the gas cartridge in a neighbouring stove suddenly exploded into flames. The explosion launched a torrent of hot soup and ingredients towards the Plaintiff. Unable to flee in time, boiling debris landed across her body. The debris scorched her bare skin, sending her running into the restaurant for help. She doused the scorched skin with cold water, hoping to alleviate the sharp pain.

She was rushed to the hospital. Found to have suffered first and second-degree burns, she underwent surgery and therapy in the ensuing months to nurse the wounds and subdue the pain. She was only 29 years old. With scars all over her body, she had little choice but to give up a budding career as a performance artist in Singapore. A few months later, she returned to Thailand to look for another job, eventually settling to be a local tour guide.

For all the injuries she had to endure, the Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages.

Having heard parties, I now deliver my verdict. I begin with the background facts and parties’ submissions.

Background facts The incident

The Plaintiff was working as a performance artist at the time of the accident. She arrived in Singapore on a short-term work permit for the period of 6 March 2015 to 1 September 2015. Her employer was Douhan Omesia Pte Ltd, located at 5 Keok Road, #05-01/2 Cuppage Plaza, Singapore 228796. She usually worked at night.¹

On 4 April 2015, she met her friend for supper at the 1st Defendant’s restaurant at around 4 am. The restaurant was located at 87 Beach Road, #01-02 Chye Sing Building, Singapore 189695. The restaurant specialised in serving hotpot. Their hotpots were prepared on portable cooker stoves, housed with gas cartridges that provided fuel to the stove. The stoves were placed on the dining tables for customers to heat up the hotpot.²

The Plaintiff sat at one of the tables located outside the restaurant. Two Singaporean women sat at an adjacent table. The tables were placed closed to each other, around an arm’s length distance or less.³

Nearing the end of her meal, the Plaintiff told her friend that she was going to wash her hands inside the restaurant. Her friend however told her to finish a bit more food so they could leave together. The Plaintiff agreed.

Around two to three minutes later, the gas cartridge of the stove placed on the adjacent table suddenly exploded. The explosion launched the hot soup and ingredients in the hotpot towards the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff instinctively raised her hands to shield her face, turning away from the blast. But it was not enough to put her out of harm’s way. Hot soup and debris landed on her face, hands and back.⁴

The Plaintiff felt a searing pain running through her face, arms and back. Her friend told her to go into the toilet inside the restaurant to douse the burn marks with cold water. She did so.

The Plaintiff was conveyed to Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”) afterwards.

At SGH, the Plaintiff was assessed to have suffered first and second-degree burns on her face, arms, chest and thigh. Her eyebrows and hair were singed. According to the SGH medical report, the “[t]otal body surface area of burns involvement was 15%”. The said report went on to describe the specific locations of the burns as follows:⁵

… partial thickness burns 7% over the left upper limb, hand and shoulder, 6% over her right upper limb including hand and 5% over the face sparing her ears. She had a 1% area of superficial burns to her chest and 4% superficial burns to her left lower limb. …

She underwent a surgical procedure called “burns scrubdown”. The doctors also applied biobrane on her face and upper limbs. She was kept on Intravenous Cefazolin perioperatively.

As her open wounds healed, she underwent regular physiotherapy and occupational therapy. She was discharged on 14 April 2015, around 10 days after the incident. Over the next few months, she made repeated visits to SGH for treatment, between June to December 2015. She was found to have developed permanent keloids over her right shoulder and left wrist. She complained of pain over these keloids. The doctors treated them by injecting intralesional steroids and silicone gel.⁶

The explosion also injured her eyes. She suffered from mild bilateral punctate epithelial erosions on the cornea. She was treated with ocular lubricants at the Singapore National Eye Centre (“SNEC”). On her follow-up visit on 2 June 2015, she made a full recovery on her eyesight.⁷

The Plaintiff was given two months of medical leave, during which she continued to receive salary. Her employer told her to rest for two months, after which she could return to Thailand. She returned to Thailand shortly afterwards.⁸

Present action

She commenced the present action in 2018. Apart from the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff also sued the 2nd Defendant, the company that supplied the gas cartridges and the stoves to the 1st Defendant. On 16 June 2022, parties entered into a consent interlocutory judgment for the 1st Defendant to bear 100% of the damages arising from the incident and for the Third Party, Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd, the insurer of the 1st Defendant, to indemnify the 1st Defendant of such damages.

The Plaintiff alleged that the injuries put her through significant pain and suffering throughout the years. She also incurred S$19,489.38 in medical expenses in Singapore as at the date of her Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEIC”), 18 December 2018.

She also alleged to have suffered loss of earnings because of the incident. In this regard, she said:⁹ In 2015, her Singapore employer paid her salary in cash. She did not receive a fixed amount of salary. Based on her recollection, she made around $1,200 to $1,300 per month. At the end of her 6-month work permit, the Plaintiff returned to Thailand. She did not work for two months while looking for a job. Eventually, she settled to be an assistant tour leader for a Japanese company. She handled inbound tours for Japanese tourists as she was able to speak Japanese. She was also paid in cash. On average, she made around THB 23,500 per month, which translated to around S$985 at the time she affirmed her AEIC in December 2018. Later, she worked as a freelance tour leader in Bangkok. Because of the nature of the freelance role, she made THB 16,500 per month, which translated to around S$692 at the time of her AEIC.

She further alleged that the scars located on prominent areas of her face and body prevented her from working in the entertainment industry, which places significant importance on beauty and image.

Finally, she alleged that she has been advised by a doctor in Bangkok that she would require regular injections, once every month, to ease the pain caused by the scars. The doctor also advised laser treatment to remove the scars. She alleged that the injection costs THB 1,000 per session and laser treatment costs THB 23,000 to 50,000 per session.¹⁰

The assessment of damages hearing was convened over two half-days on 13 July 2023 and 5 September 2023. At the hearing, the Third Party defended the action on behalf of the 1st Defendant.

At the time of the hearing, which took place some eight years after the incident, the Plaintiff continued to exhibit unsightly scars that canvassed swathes of her body. While the wounds have long healed, the scars remained. As the photos exhibited in the Plaintiff’s AEIC last filed in 2018 were rather dated, I invited parties to adduce photographs showing the current condition of the Plaintiff’s skin. The photos showed prominent scars covering significant segments of the Plaintiff’s left arm. There were also some scars on the Plaintiff’s face, chest, back, right hand and thigh, though they were less obvious and serious than those on her left arm. These scars were of a darker tone compared to the rest of the Plaintiff’s skin. Prominent keloids can also be seen on the Plaintiff’s left hand and right shoulder.¹¹ A medical expert from SGH testified that the Plaintiff’s skin condition had likely plateaued. The scars would be permanent, meaning the Plaintiff would have to live with them for the rest of her life. Laser treatment is unlikely to yield positive results as the recurrence rate is high.¹²

The Plaintiff also testified at the hearing that she has moved to Japan about three years ago after getting married to a Japanese. When in Japan, she worked as a sales assistant at a clothing store for about one and a half years. She left the job after getting pregnant. Since giving birth, she has not secured fresh employment.

Parties’ submissions

Though the...